3 ms·
Let's just be real. It's assholes like this that take advantage of the buffet line, thereby costing all of the rest of us. And then they complain when they ca
by blunte 9y ago
Let's just be real. It's assholes like this that take advantage of the buffet line, thereby costing all of the rest of us. And then they complain when they can't go back for the 45th plate of food.
People like this are why Amazon's unlimited cloud storage just became limited. The people out there abusing the spirit of the offer know who they are. The finance world is FULL of those people, and it's a good part of why the economic world is really fucked up.
Be a team player. Be thoughtful of your peers and neighbors. We'll all end up better off, even you. /rant
- therobot24 9y agoThere is just so much wrong with your statement. You're not a comcast rep by chance are you?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vortico 9y agoThis is why I hate services that offer "unlimited" of some resource, like Dreamhost and AWS, so I will never use them. Everyone is worse off. People who use less than a ridiculous amount are paying for a few outliers using 100x more. People who use a ridiculous amount can no longer be sure whether their service will be active the next day because an employee deems their use "ridiculous". And I don't think they're at fault like you're suggesting. Suppose I have a legitimate use case for storing 17TB of data and need to do it on a budget. During my shopping, I discover ten $1000/yr services for 20TB storage and three $100/yr services for unlimited storage. To me, the $100 services seem like scams or that they have no idea what they're doing. Amazon, Backblaze, and Dreamhost are literally giving off these vibes! Regardless, I'm on a budget so I purchase Backblaze and upload my 17TB. But in the back of my mind I'm nervous that they will shut off my service, despite the contract I entered with them to keep an "unlimited" amount of data for the price I paid. Or, if the contract says they have the right to terminate my service if they deem the amount to be too much, that would make nervous even as a normal user of the service, since the definition of "ridiculous" might be decided by some judge in a court if the service decides to cancel the contract and my company decides to sue. Would you really want a judge to decide that, or would you prefer a hard limit to be placed on the website and the contract in the first place? I truly don't understand the appeal of "unlimited" plans compared to simple hard limited, tiered plans.
- blunte 9y ago> Suppose I have a legitimate use case for storing 17TB of data and need to do it on a budget. Can you give me a theoretical example? Seems like saying, "Suppose I have a legitimate case for needing 45 trips to the buffet line." I get your points, but I think outliers are outliers, and correspondingly they should be thinking as such. So if I had, for whatever reason, a need to store 17TB of data, I would need to be as clever about how I stored it as I obviously was clever enough to even possess 17TB.
- vortico 9y agoThere could be many reasons. In order to run simulations at my work, I request databases of input data and results of previous experiments. Each experiment is 1-100GB of xray images and dumps from other instruments. Mostly the experimenters dump the data they don't need, so often my team becomes the only possessor of the raw data. It would be convenient to have an off-site backup in case someone rm -rf's the drives. When I was younger I worked at a recording studio. Each song consumed about 10GB, and it was convenient to return to the sources at a future date once the mix was delivered to the artist. Each artist recorded about 10 songs, and in a year we could do 50 artists. I can't imagine what animation and video production houses go through per day. Having a backup is completely necessary for these folks. I could go on, but I feel 17TB is pretty common for businesses, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question. These days you can get 17TB for only $700.
- 9y ago
- imaginenore 9y agoHow is he an asshole? He was sold the service, and he used it properly, the terms of service were followed. If anything, this story shows that Backblaze sucks at providing said service.
- blunte 9y agoThere's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. People know the difference. And the few people who don't know the difference don't get a free pass for ignorance. Unlimited bandwidth, free drinks, unlimited storage, etc., are all offered with some expectation of limits, with occasional spikes in use. But let's back up a moment. 17TB is a lot of data. If you were a professional photographer or videographer, I could possibly imagine that need. Or if you were doing some truly big data work, or some financial algo backtesting (on a really grand scale), maybe. Those people should be able to afford storage prices in line with their amount of data. Secondly, assume you lost your local drive. How are you going to restore 17TB? Whose network (that you're taking advantage of) are you going to saturate with your restore?
- brador 9y agoThose people are pushing the tech to it's limits so providers can have solutions ready for when you want to hit those numbers too. We should be grateful these early outliers exist and break things for us in advance.
- blunte 9y agoI'm grateful. I just don't think they should make a big fuss when something "currently absurd" doesn't work perfectly for them.
- everdayimhustln 9y agoTragedy of the Commons happens without metering. Monetize all the things and give away almost nothing for free if there is an associated cost.